- From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:24:19 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Apr 16, 2013, at 16:55 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Markus Lanthaler > <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> After a short discussion with Robin we decided to use method overloading to >> We also considered Futures but decided that introducing a normative >> dependency to the DOM spec is not acceptable at this stage. > In this case, your API is a textbook example of Futures. You have an > async call which returns a single value, or an error. You can't get > much more perfect than that. Maybe Futures should be in a separate spec? They don't seem to have any dependencies on DOM, and having them separate would reduce the bureaucratic hurdles for non-DOM specs to refer to them. Maybe eventually they could migrate into the ECMAScript standard library (currently known as ES chapter 15). Norbert
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 14:24:57 UTC